The Osterley Times

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Welcome to Cameron land.

Johann Hari has another article in the Independent giving us a foretaste of what Cameron's Britain might look like.

Hammersmith and Fulham have a Conservative council, and it is one which George Osborne promises will be a "model" for a new Conservative government.

Here's what they did for the homeless:

They promised to move beyond Thatcherism and make the poor better off. They were the first to hum the tune that David Cameron has been singing a capella in this election.

People who took this at face value were startled by the first act of the Conservatives on assuming power – a crackdown on the homeless. They immediately sold off 12 homeless shelters, handing them to large property developers. The horrified charity Crisis was offered premises by the BBC to house the abandoned in a shelter over the Christmas period at least. The council refused permission. They said the homeless were a "law and order issue", and a shelter would attract undesirables to the area. With this in mind, they changed the rules so that the homeless had to "prove" to a sceptical bureaucracy that they had nowhere else to go – and if they failed, they were turned away.
We know where this ended. A young woman – let's called her Jane Phillips, because she wants to remain anonymous – turned up at the council's emergency housing office one night, sobbing and shaking. She was eight months pregnant. She explained she was being beaten up by her boyfriend and had finally fled because she was frightened for her unborn child. The council said they would "investigate" her situation to find "proof of homelessness" – but she told them she had nowhere to go while they carried it out. By law, they were required to provide her with emergency shelter. They refused. They suggested she try to find a flat on the private market.

And here's what they did for the disabled:

In their 2006 manifesto, the local Conservatives had given a cast-iron guarantee: "A Conservative council will not reintroduce home-care charging". It was a totemic symbol of leaving behind Thatcherism: they wouldn't charge the disabled, the mentally ill or the elderly for the care they needed just to survive.

Within three months, the promise was broken. Debbie Domb, 51, is a teacher who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1994. She had to give up work, and now she needs 24/7 care. After being lifted up by a large metal harness and placed in her wheelchair so she can talk to me, she explains: "This was always such a great place to live if you were disabled. You were really treated well. Then this new council was elected and it's been so frightening... The first thing that happened when they came in was that they announced any disabled person they assessed as having 'lower moderate' needs was totally cut off. So people who needed help having a shower, or getting dressed, had that lifeline taken away completely. Then they started sending the rest of us bills."

She "panicked" when a bill came through saying she had to pay £12.50 for every hour of care she needed. "I thought, 'Oh my God, how am I going to do this?' The more care you need, the higher your bill, so the most disabled people got the highest charges.

Cameron is going out of his way not to tell us what he plans to do, but he claims to be "especially proud" of the work being done in Hammersmith and Fulham.

They have turned on the homeless and made the disabled pay for their own care, and they did this so that they could cut taxes which disproportionately favour the wealthy.

And the next thing they have in their sights is council housing.

Recently the leader of the Conservative council, Stephen Greenhalgh, co-wrote a pamphlet called Principles for Social Housing Reform, recommending that Cameron adopt a radical new approach to council housing. He said it provides "barracks for the poor" and helps create "a culture of entitlement", while "deliver[ing] a risible return on assets". He asked: why do we continue to "warehouse poverty in the core of our great cities", on land that is worth good money? Instead of following "the same narrow agenda of 'building more homes'", he said councils should "exploit [the] huge reserve of capital value" in the houses and the land by selling it off and charging "market terms", with some mild subsidy for the very poorest.

And yet, today, it looks as if we are about to elect these buggers to power.

If the behaviour of Hammersmith and Fulham Council is any indication of what we are in for, God help us all....

Click here for Hari's column.

General election 2010: David Cameron eyes the prize.

Britain goes to the polls today with most predictions stating that Cameron will have the largest number of seats without having an overall majority.

The Conservatives appear to be on the brink of regaining power at the end of one of the most tumultuous and tightly fought general election campaigns since the second world war.

A Guardian/ICM poll shows the Conservatives with an eight-point lead over Labour, just short of what they need for an overall majority. The survey put the Conservatives on 36%, Labour on 28% and the Liberal Democrats on 26%.

There is no sign of Labour or the Lib Dems closing the gap on the Tories – and at least three other polls have come up with similar results. Only one of the four polls projected Labour gaining the largest number of seats.

It is being suggested that Cameron will gain enough seats to be able to govern with the help of the Ulster Unionists.

Astonishingly, we have arrived at this day with most of us still utterly unaware of what exactly it is that Cameron proposes to do.

I watched another one of his speeches on TV last night and it was a master-class in saying bugger all. It was peppered with calls for "change" without giving any specifics of what that change might look like. Likewise, we keep hearing that he is going to have to make "tough choices" but there is no indication of what those choices might be.

Johann Hari reminds us of what Labour have done for us over the last thirteen years:

When you remember the country that we voted to leave behind on May 1st 1997, what do you see? I remember the science block in the sixth form college I was studying at, where they couldn't afford to fix the roof, so every time it rained, water seeped through, and lessons had to stop. I remember my friends who earned £1 an hour, because there was no legal limit on how little you could offer a human being for their labour. I remember one of my closest relatives having to decide whether to buy nappies or heat her flat, because there were no tax credits, and single mothers were the subject of a Tory hate campaign. I remember how it felt to grow up gay and discover I could never have a legally recognised relationship. I remember my elderly neighbour waiting two years for a hip operation on the NHS, crying every night with the pain.

None of those things happens in Britain today, and it's not by fluke. Spending on public services has risen by 54 per cent since 1997, paid for by higher taxes. The result? Nobody is on a waiting list for more than 18 weeks – and the average wait is just a month. Nobody goes to school in buildings that are falling apart. Nobody can be legally paid less than £5.93 an hour. The poorest 10 per cent receive £1,700 in tax credits a year each – meaning their children get birthday parties and trips to the seaside, and parents who aren't constantly panicked about how to buy food at the end of every week.

Labour didn't get everything right, but they did at least set out trying to make Britain a fairer place.

They have invested record amounts into health and education. We now have a minimum wage. They recognised that we have human rights. Gay couples can now enter into civil partnerships. Tony Blair negotiated peace in Northern Ireland. I could go on and on....

Today, it looks like all that is coming to an end. That's not to say that any of those achievements will be shelved, but it does say that our strides towards a more progressive future ends today.

And none of us know what Cameron is proposing because he won't tell us.

But they have hinted already at slashing social services and making the poorest members of our society pay for the sins of our greediest bankers.

Labour made mistakes, many of which I have written about, but they did start out with the best of intentions.

The Tory plans for inheritance tax show where their true colours lie:

The Conservative’s plans would cost the Treasury an estimated £500 million in 2010-11 and up to £1.5 billion in 2013-14 with over half the benefit of the change going to the richest 3000 people in the UK.

Commenting Mr Williams said:

“The Tory party are eager to tell us they believe in building a fairer society, yet these figures clearly show the damage they would do while seeking to help only a tiny minority of the richest people in the UK.

“Instead of looking at ways they could help lift the burden of our unfair tax system on the poorest in our society, they are focusing all their energy on ensuring that bankers and other multimillionaires can keep their fortunes.

Today it looks like we are heading back to the days of Conservatives looking out for their own and finding ways to make life harder for those who have bugger all.

Every single positive change Labour made to this country over the last thirteen years was bitterly opposed by Cameron and the Tories. That should give us some indication of the direction in which Cameron will lead us, even if he is too coy to tell us himself. And, even today, as he looks likely to assume power, we must never forget that some 60% of us will not vote Tory.

That's why I still hope that anyone planning to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat looks at which of those parties has the most chance of beating the Conservatives in their own seat and votes accordingly.

We can't stop Cameron coming to power, but we can limit the amount of damage he is able to do once he gets there. Enter your postcode here to find out how best to "Stop Dave".

Click here for full article.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Michael Brown on Fox News: Obama wanted oil spill so he could "shut down" offshore drilling.

The kind of rhetoric which is routinely allowed on Fox News borders on disgraceful.

BROWN: And so now you’re looking at this oil slick approaching, you know, the Louisiana shore, according to certain — NOAA and other places, if the winds are right, it will go up the East Coast.

This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists and say, “I’m going to shut it down because it`s too dangerous.” While Mexico and China and everybody else drills in the Gulf. We’re going to get shut down.

He also claims that Obama has always been against off shore drilling which is simply false.

Here, Gibbs responds:

Gibbs is clearly saying that there is no dialogue to be had with people who make that sort of accusation. It's simply an insane thing to say, especially as it's being said without an iota of proof to back it up.

Glenn Beck whines that 'the press' doesn't take his conspiracy theories seriously.

Poor Glenn Beck. Now he's left complaining that the press don't take his whining seriously and have the nerve to label him a fear monger.

And, to make matters worse, even his viewers are deserting him.

"Glenn Beck's total number of viewers are down by almost 30%, from 2.9 million in January to 2.1 million in April."

Riding the Tea Party horse doesn't seem to have worked out too well for the man who thinks Obama is a racist and refuses to apologise for saying so.

And, oddly, the madder he becomes, the more people are switching off.

Gordon Brown urges voters to 'come home to Labour' after late poll boost.

As we near the finishing line Gordon Brown is coming out fighting.

The momentum behind a last-minute resurrection of Gordon Brown's election campaign grew last night after he delivered a powerful testimony to his party's achievements and appealed to undecided voters to consider their record and "come home to Labour".

Buoyed by a strengthening in Labour's polling position – YouGov today puts the party back in the lead in terms of the number of seats – Brown told a rally of 500 party faithful in Manchester that they had a record to be proud of and to fight for.

In a passionate and detailed speech, he read out a 55-point list of Labour's achievements, ranging from the minimum wage to free museum entry, to rapturous applause.

Brown, who was flanked by 10 cabinet ministers, warned that a Tory government would undo that progress, and launched a powerful critique of David Cameron's judgment, saying the Tory leader would have left families to "sink or swim" in the recession, and businesses to go to the wall, and have seen unemployment as a "price worth paying".

The scary thing is that every word of what Brown says is true. The Tories did want the recession to be allowed to bite as deeply as it could and they did see unemployment as "a price worth paying".

They should be punished heavily at the polls for their callousness but, for the longest time, it didn't look like it was going to work out that way.

However, if the latest polls can be believed, the Tories may very well fail in their bid to have a majority.

Lord Mandelson, who described the speech as "another bravura performance", highlighted today's YouGov/Sun poll which put the Tories unchanged on 35%. Labour was up two points on 30% while the Liberal Democrats were down four points on 24%.

This could give Labour 288 seats, the Tories would have 261 and the Lib Dems would have 72.

"We have a day to go," Mandelson said. "This poll shows we are still in it. Far from David Cameron waltzing into No 10, the public are not dancing to his tune. They are looking very carefully at the choice between Labour and the Conservatives."

This last minute surge in Labour's fortunes has sent David Cameron around the country on an all night long campaign to pull in those final undecided voters.

David Cameron urged voters to rally to the Conservatives as he embarked on a non-stop, 30-hour tour of 10 target seats across the British Isles to try to cement his support in the final hours of the election campaign.

The Tory leader sought to underscore his determination to win an overall majority on Thursday by campaigning through the night, declaring he was a unifying force, "fighting for change, fighting to win and fighting for people".

Cameron is the man who, had anyone asked me six months ago, I would have said would waltz into Number Ten in this election.

But, it's not working out that way because, much as he talks of "change", he has utterly failed to let the British people know what that change might look like.

This has allowed Nick Clegg to sell himself as the real agent of change and to steal Cameron's clothes.

My gut still tells me that Cameron will form the next government, but the fact that we are this close to election day and there is still this amount of doubt about the final outcome says a lot about the incompetence of the campaign which he has run.

No-one has a bloody clue what he stands for; other than the fact that he is not Gordon Brown. For many months it appeared as if that would be enough to see him across the finishing line.

But, as the election approached, one could almost feel the country having second thoughts. They don't want Brown, but neither has Cameron convinced them of what he stands for.

As we go into the last day of the campaign, it would be a very brave man who would risk money betting on the outcome. Unless he was betting on a hung parliament. Because, at the moment, that's about the only thing I feel sure of.

That, and the fact that Cameron has still not sealed the deal...

And, as if to undermine that point, here's an example of the kind of fire which Brown is now displaying.

Click here for full article.

UK 'blocking' Mossad return to London.

I spoke the other day about a group of French Jewish intellectuals who were arguing that blind support for the state of Israel was wrong and counter-productive.

The signatories to the petition, all of them Shimon's friends, have concluded that they no longer have a choice: Their Israel has no idea where it's living. It doesn't realize how cut off it is from the world, from America, Europe and the Arab countries that have made peace with it, just when it needs them more than ever.

And, as if to prove their point, Britain has refused to allow a Mossad representative back into the country because Israel is refusing to give any guarantee that it will not misuse British passports in future clandestine operations. This arose from the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, which was believed to have been done by Mossad using forged British passports.

The British government expressed outrage but the Israelis have never admitted having anything to do with this murder, although the British were convinced enough to expel Israeli diplomats from British soil.

But, clearly, the Israelis have not understood the level of outrage which the British felt.

Israel has never admitted any role in February's Dubai assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who was described as a key figure in smuggling Iranian weapons into the Gaza Strip on behalf of the Palestinian Islamist movement. It has abstained from signing any material that might be construed as a confession.

Britain had made clear in public statements and private meetings with the Israelis that it expected formal guarantees that there would be no repeat of the passport cloning. The real documents belonged to Britons living in Israel.

Forged or stolen Irish, Australian, French and German passports were also used by the hit squad, whose operation – including the use of elaborate disguises – was extensively recorded by CCTV cameras in the emirate.

Israel conspicuously refrained from retaliating for the expulsion of the Mossad officer, apparently accepting that it was no more than a slap on the wrist before a return to business as usual.

Well, there has been no return to "business as usual" as far as Gordon Brown's government is concerned. They are insisting - and I don't regard this as outrageous - that the Israelis give some form of guarantee that this outrageous use of the passports of British citizens in clandestine Mossad operations stops.

Clearly the Israelis are waiting for the Tories to be elected so that normal relations can continue.

Yediot reported that Israeli security officials were concerned about the breakdown in relations between the two agencies. "It is estimated that the affair will only be resolved, if at all, after this week's UK general elections," the paper said.

But the French Jewish intellectuals clearly have a point when they argue that Netanyahu's Israel "doesn't realize how cut off it is from the world" if it thinks that Labour is the problem here and the behaviour they indulged in is acceptable.

Israel is currently seeing it's ties to the US at their lowest ebb for over thirty years. And now they are now at odds with the UK, another traditional ally.

Netanyahu should realise that the problem here is not with Labour or Obama; the problem is that the extremist right wing coalition which he has formed is out of kilter with the rest of the world.

Click here for full article.

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

"Sabotage!" Right-wing media respond to oil spill by dreaming up conspiracy theories.

I'm not surprised that right wing lunatics are now claiming this:

Limbaugh: "Environmental whackos" may have blown up oil rig to "head off more oil drilling." On his April 29 radio show, Rush Limbaugh questioned "the timing" of the explosion and said: "Lest we forget ... the cap and trade bill was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist whackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants." Limbaugh added: "[W]hat better way to head off more oil drilling and nuclear plants then by blowing up a rig? I'm just, I'm just noting the timing here."

Perino: "[W]as this deliberate?" On the May 3 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the spill: "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You have to wonder... if there was sabotage involved."

They always have to find a way to blame progressives when the inevitable results of their own "drill baby drill" mindset is exposed for all to see.

UPDATE:

Chris Matthews points out the idiocy of Limbaugh's theory. The notion that environmentalists will destroy the environment in order to save it.

It's simply impossible to take these people seriously.

George Will on Wind Farms & Oil Spills.

George Will chooses an ironic moment to make this idiotic claim:

GEORGE WILL: Right. And -- and, by the way, wind farms kill a lot more birds daily than are probably going to be killed in this oil spill.

He says this at the very moment when we are reading about the effects of this latest oil spill on wildlife.

A first indicator of the damage it will cause may be the surge in numbers of dead turtles found in just two days, not just here in Pass Christian – the town collected eight dead turtles yesterday and nine on Sunday – but all along the Mississippi shore. The first necropsies on the animals were started yesterday at the Institute for Marine and Mammal Studies in Gulfport, Mississippi.

"It is much higher than normal," admits Moby Solangi, the researcher who leads the facility, which is tucked next to a canal a few miles from the beach. He warns a reporter to cover his nose as he opens a deep freezer where 22 turtles, including several endangered Kemp's Ridley turtles, are individually wrapped in plastic bin-liners awaiting the arrival of the vets who will examine them.

But Will chooses this as the moment to talk about the danger to wildlife from wind farms? Moronic...

Hain Urges Tactical Voting.

Peter Hain has come closer than any other Labour politician in urging tactical voting to keep the conservatives from power.

In an interview with The Independent, the cabinet minister Peter Hain urged people to "vote with their heads, not their hearts" as he issued a last-minute appeal to supporters of other parties to rally behind Labour "for the only time in their life" to stop David Cameron becoming Prime Minister in Thursday's election.

"I support every Labour candidate and the Liberal Democrat leadership supports every Liberal Democrat candidate. But voters are intelligent and they know what the real fight is in their own constituency. They will draw their own conclusions," he said.

In a three party system it is something which I think it would always be wise to keep in mind. I have many friends in constituencies like Richmond where a vote for Labour would be an utterly wasted vote and I always urge them to vote for the Liberal Democrats as vote for Labour in that constituency is really a vote for the Tories.

But the same applies to those Liberal Democrat voters who live in areas where Labour are the only serious challengers to the seat. In those areas I would suggest that they vote for the progressive candidate who has the best chance of success.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, makes a similar plea in the New Statesman magazine, saying: "I always want a Labour candidate to win, but I recognise there's an issue in places like North Norfolk, where my family live, where Norman Lamb [the Liberal Democrat candidate] is fighting the Tories, who are in second place. And I want to keep the Tories out."

It's rare for the Labour party to make the same point which I have been making to friends for years. We have to recognise that, in a three party system, the fact that there are two progressive parties - and only one party of right wingers - means that our vote is potentially split.

We have to, as Hain rightly says, to use our heads as well as our hearts. That is why I urge friends in seats where the Liberals are challenging to Tories to back the Liberals. But the same should also be true for Liberal voters in seats where Labour are the only serious challenger to the Tories.

His message was: "If you vote Labour just once in your life, now is the time to do it, especially in the key Conservative-Labour marginals. A huge majority of the electorate does not want a Conservative government; that is why the Tories are not romping home in this election. I know many of these people are not natural Labour supporters, but are they willing to pay the price of a Conservative government?"

UPDATE:

The Daily Mirror have produced a chart showing how tactical voters should vote in key marginals. (PDF)

Click here for full article.

Tory candidate Philippa Stroud trends on Twitter over 'gay cure' story.

I spoke the other day about Philippa Stroud, the head of the Centre for Social Justice, which is credited with having formulated as many as 70 of the Tory party's policies, having formed a church which sought to "cure" gay people by driving out their "demons" through prayer.

The amazing thing about this story is that the media has not really picked up on it at all, and that fact has caught the attention of those who use twitter.

The high-flying Conservative candidate Philippa Stroud is currently trending on Twitter, the subject of a campaign to bring wider media attention to the Observer's story yesterday that she founded a church that tried to "cure" homosexuals by driving out their "demons" through prayer.

The story has been put on Facebook more than 5,000 times and tweeted more than 7,000 (these are both huge figures). Judging by today's Twitter activity, a lot of those people are surprised it has so far escaped the attention of the BBC and Sky News

Of course, they are surprised that this story has not caught more attention. The PM called one voter a bigot and the world stopped turning, Philippa Stroud has insulted millions of people and the national press has hardly reacted at all.

Click here for full article.

Monday, May 03, 2010

Maher: Racists are more likely to be Republicans.

Maher is, as always, bang on the money.

"Government power bothers conservatives unless it's directed at people that are not white. It seems like there is something like that going on," Maher said on ABC Sunday.

Conservative columnist George Will seemed to take Maher's words personally. "Mr. Maher, just said -- if i heard him right -- that conservatives basically are racists and like government intrusion only against people that aren't white," said Will.

"Let me defend myself," countered Maher. "I would never say and I have never said, because it's not true that Republicans, all republicans are racists. That would be silly and wrong. But now days, if you are racist, you're probably a Republican. And that is quite different," explained Maher.

Cameron set to challenge convention over hung parliament.

It says a lot about how well Cameron expects to do this week that he is even setting out this argument in advance.

David Cameron is set to claim victory if Labour comes third in Thursday's election even if he fails to win an overall majority.

His plan, revealed in an interview with The Independent, raises the prospect of a constitutional wrangle in which the Conservatives and Labour fight for the right to form a minority government if neither wins outright.
[...]
In 1974, Edward Heath remained in Downing Street even though his Conservative Party won fewer seats than Labour. However, talks with the Liberal Party failed to reach agreement and he resigned as Prime Minister.

Mr Cameron said: "There is convention and there is practice and they are not always quite the same thing." He added: "In 1974 it was clear the Conservatives had lost and therefore they were out of office."

Sources in all three parties agree it will "depend on the numbers" but admit there are grey areas which could draw Sir Gus – and ultimately the Queen – into the controversy.

One can obviously point to Netanyahu in Israel and show that there are times when the party who wins the fewest seats does indeed end up forming the government. So, were Brown to stumble on, it would not be unprecedented.

That said, I really would not want to see Brown do that. It would fatally wound the Labour party if Brown were to take that route.

Far better to allow the public what they appear to want. A change of government, but one which lacks an overall majority, limiting the amount of damage which Cameron is able to do.

But, by stating that he intends to push against the constitutional convention, Cameron is admitting what all of us already know. He has not convinced a majority of the British people that it is time to allow the Tories back into power. He has utterly failed to close the deal.

People want change, but they don't want the change which Cameron is offering. That is why Nick Clegg has become so incredibly popular during this election. And that is why I strongly suspect that the morning after the election it is Clegg who will sit in the position of King-maker.

So, in all probability, we will see Cameron limping into Downing Street with no popular wind behind his back. That's what happens when you fail to sell your policies to a country with an unpopular government.

Click here for full article.

From Bill Moyers Final Broadcast: Plutocracy and Democracy Don't Mix.

With most political commentators spewing right wing garbage, it's always been refreshing to hear the intelligence and understanding of Bill Moyers.

BILL MOYERS: You've no doubt figured out my bias by now. I've hardly kept it a secret. In this regard, I take my cue from the late Edward R. Murrow, the Moses of broadcast news.

Ed Murrow told his generation of journalists bias is okay as long as you don't try to hide it. So here, one more time, is mine: plutocracy and democracy don't mix. Plutocracy, the rule of the rich, political power controlled by the wealthy.

Plutocracy is not an American word but it's become an American phenomenon. Back in the fall of 2005, the Wall Street giant Citigroup even coined a variation on it, plutonomy, an economic system where the privileged few make sure the rich get richer with government on their side. By the next spring, Citigroup decided the time had come to publicly "bang the drum on plutonomy."

And bang they did, with an "equity strategy" for their investors, entitled, "Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer." Here are some excerpts:

"Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper...[and] take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years..."

"...the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US-- the plutonomists in our parlance-- have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US...[and] from globalization and the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor."

"...[and they] are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years. [Because] the dynamics of plutonomy are still intact."

And so they were, before the great collapse of 2008. And so they are, today, after the fall. While millions of people have lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings, the plutonomists are doing just fine. In some cases, even better, thanks to our bailout of the big banks which meant record profits and record bonuses for Wall Street.

Now why is this? Because over the past 30 years the plutocrats, or plutonomists — choose your poison — have used their vastly increased wealth to capture the flag and assure the government does their bidding. Remember that Citigroup reference to "market-friendly governments" on their side? It hasn't mattered which party has been in power — government has done Wall Street's bidding.

Don't blame the lobbyists, by the way; they are simply the mules of politics, delivering the drug of choice to a political class addicted to cash — what polite circles call "campaign contributions" and Tony Soprano would call "protection."

This marriage of money and politics has produced an America of gross inequality at the top and low social mobility at the bottom, with little but anxiety and dread in between, as middle class Americans feel the ground falling out from under their feet. According to a study from the Pew Research Center last month, nine out of ten Americans give our national economy a negative rating. Eight out of ten report difficulty finding jobs in their communities, and seven out of ten say they experienced job-related or financial problems over the past year.

So it is that like those populists of that earlier era, millions of Americans have awakened to a sobering reality: they live in a plutocracy, where they are disposable. Then, the remedy was a popular insurgency that ignited the spark of democracy.

Now we have come to another parting of the ways, and once again the fate and character of our country are up for grabs.

So along with Jim Hightower and Iowa's concerned citizens, and many of you, I am biased: democracy only works when we claim it as our own.

Moyers will be terribly missed. His integrity and his intelligence set him apart from the rest of the press pack.

Unconditional support for Israel 'is dangerous', say leading European Jews.

More than three thousand European Jews, including some prominent French intellectuals, have signed a petition calling for an end to the Israeli policy of promoting and encouraging illegal settlements.

Supporters, who compare their goals to those of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel Jewish lobbying group in the United States, plan to present their position at a news conference at the European Parliament in Brussels tomorrow.

They say they hope to build a European movement that is both "committed to the state of Israel and critical of the current choices of its government".

Israeli columnist Yossi Sarid, a former Cabinet minister identified with Israel's peace movement, praised the initiative in an comment piece published in the Haaretz daily today.

"These are people who seize every opportunity to defend Israel publicly and remain faithful to it," he wrote. "But even their patience is running out and their hearts are filled with sincere concern."

For too long the only opinion which has been allowed to have any validity has been the right wing Likud line, with all others being deemed either anti-Semitic or the opinions of "self hating" Jews.

The petition says Israel faces a threat in the "occupation and the continuing pursuit of settlements in the West Bank and in the Arab districts of East Jerusalem".

"These policies are morally and politically wrong and feed the unacceptable delegitimization process that Israel currently faces abroad," it sayings, adding that "systematic support of Israeli government policy is dangerous and does not serve the true interests of the state of Israel".

It really does feel as if Israel has pushed this as far as she can and that time is not on her side when it comes to the illegal settlements. And the signatories to this petition make the very good point that they are actually being very good friends of Israel when they warn her against actions which will ultimately harm the state.

The signatories to the petition, all of them Shimon's friends, have concluded that they no longer have a choice: Their Israel has no idea where it's living. It doesn't realize how cut off it is from the world, from America, Europe and the Arab countries that have made peace with it, just when it needs them more than ever.

They deliberated, consulted, formulated and reformulated. It's not easy for them. But in the end they decided to stand up and make their statements, to write an unprecedented document. "European Jewish Call for Reason" is its title. They call on the Israeli government to immediately freeze construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to "ensure the survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state."

Netanyahu and his coalition are way out of step with the time they find themselves living through.

These signatories have proven themselves to be very good friends of Israel, but even they are now saying that enough is enough.

They have come to the conclusion that simply remaining silent is actually not being a very good friend to Israel, especially when it is being led by this dangerous coalition of extreme right wingers.

And their decision to speak out has angered many French Jews:

“This will largely be used by those who are true enemies of Israel,” warned Richard Prasquier, chairman of the Jewish Representative Committee of France, one of the community’s main representative body. “It’s very serious because these are prestigious personalities,” he added, saying that Levy and Finkielkraut had made a “serious mistake”. Joel Mergui, president of France’s Central Consistory, called the wording of the petition “excessive” and said he was “shocked by the term ‘a call to reason’ when Israel is a democratic state.”

The chairman of the United Jewish Social Fund, Pierre Besnainou, said he was worried about “Jews being divided in public” and Claude Barouch, deputy head of the Jewish employers’ association, said the call “weakened Israel”.

The claim that it is dangerous if Jewish voices are "divided in public" is exactly the way that Israeli right wingers have ensured that their views are the only ones which are acceptable. Indeed, that they are often the only ones which are heard.

I think these new voices calling for reason are to be welcomed. For far too long we have only heard from the Israeli right. And, at the moment, they have placed Israel on a collision course with the rest of the world. These signatories are being good friends when they say, "Enough is enough."

Click here for full article.

Sunday, May 02, 2010

AZ Gov. Jan Brewer: Arizona under 'terrorist attacks' in the form of illegal immigration.

Is there seriously nothing that these right wingers won't link to terrorism?

Kelly: Do you think that these folks who are all noticeably outside of your state, are the ones that I just ticked off, including the President, have an appreciation, governor, for what Arizona has been going through with respect to illegal immigration?

Brewer: Obviously not. You know Arizona has been under terrorist attacks, if you will, with all of this illegal immigration that has been taking place on our very porous border. ... The whole issue comes back, that we do not and will not tolerate illegal immigration bringing with it very much so the implications of crime and terrorism into our state.

And the figures don't back up the claims which she is making regarding crime:

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the violent crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 -- the most recent year from which data are available -- than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 than any year since 1968. In addition, in Arizona, the violent crime rate dropped from 577.9 per 100,000 population in 1998 to 447 per 100,000 population in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,997 to 4,291 during the same period. During the same decade, Arizona's undocumented immigrant population grew rapidly.

That's not to say that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but the links which she is claiming between illegal immigration and crime/terrorism simply aren't evident in the numbers.

Gulf oil spill triples in size overnight; unimaginable environmental catastrophe looms.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I expressed my astonishment at the time Obama said that he was going to allow oil exploration along the US East Coast.

He's shelved these plans now that disaster has hit and one can only hope that he will explore safer greener technology in place of this kind of madness. This rig is drilling so deep down that there is a chance they will simply have to let it empty itself of all of it's oil before this is over.

The "Drill, baby, drill" crowd now have the audacity to try to lay the blame for this at Obama's door. It's simply a further indication of how shameless they are.

How the eyes of the world see a very British contest.

It's funny, but you rarely wonder what your country looks like from abroad or how they are following an event like a UK election.

For instance, I have been following Andrew Sullivan's coverage of the UK election and he sees things completely differently than I do, I suppose because he is viewing the election from the States.

Eduardo Suárez is covering the UK election for the Spanish paper he begins by lamenting the fact that Tony Blair is no longer the British Prime Minister.

"We all miss him. All the foreign correspondents." In what way? "Oh, in all ways. He's such a greedy guy! And a liar. You know he was just a real politician, an actor, a multimillionaire. He was just such fun."

Gordon is, of course, dull by comparison. But the Spaniards have sat up and taken notice since Nick Clegg and the very first election debate, but not for the reasons that you might imagine.

Overnight Spain was galvanised not by a sudden interest in the Liberal Democrats' domestic policy, nor the prospect of electoral reform, but by the vision that is Miriam González Durántez, Nick Clegg's Spanish wife.

"Thank God!" he says. "Really. She has been like a gift from God for me. There was no interest in the election before, none. But now Mr and Mrs Clegg are on the front page, not every day, but a lot. People fantasise that 500 years after the Armada we are finally going to put a Spanish Catholic woman in No 10. It's made it very easy for me to sell stories to the paper – I'm doing two or three every day now."

I think that's hysterical. That thought wouldn't even occur to the average British voter. I wasn't even aware of Clegg's wife religion, and yet in Spain it has put on her on the front page of every newspaper because they dream of revenge for the fate of the Armada.

But Suárez also highlights the fact that Britain, although a leading member of the European Union, rarely considers how the rest of Europe views us.

The fact that "you are only interested in yourself. You don't care about anyone else, any other county, you just spend all your time looking at yourself, this is very funny".

And he loves our political stars:

"Well Clegg, of course. But my favourite is Mr Mandelson. He's the most grotesque character. I absolutely adore him. He's so funny. And he's such a drama queen. He exaggerates everything. But he's very intelligent – he's the first one to come up with a new catchphrase. And he's always in tune with the mood. He smells the mood around him. Yesterday he said: 'Flirt with Nick Clegg and you'll end up married to Cameron.' Which is brilliant, isn't it? He's just so funny. Funnier even than Lembit Öpik."

As Burns said, "If God had had the gift to gie us, to see ourselves as others see us."

Click here for full article.

Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people.

Philippa Stroud, the head of the Centre for Social Justice, which is credited with having formulated as many as 70 of the Tory party's policies, founded a church that tried to "cure" gay people by driving out their "demons" through prayer.

And yet it is said that this woman has heavily influenced David Cameron's thoughts on subjects such as the family.

Abi, a teenage girl with transsexual issues, was sent to the church by her parents, who were evangelical Christians. "Convinced I was demonically possessed, my parents made the decision to move to Bedford, because of this woman [Stroud] who had come back from Hong Kong and had the power to set me free," Abi told the Observer.

"She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong. The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus."

"T" said he moved to Bedford because he believed the church could help him stop having homosexual thoughts. "I was trying to convince myself that a change was possible but, at the same time, a part of me didn't believe it was possible," he said. "The church's approach was not that it was sinful to be homosexual but that it was sinful to act on it. The aim is to get a person to a position where they don't have these sinful emotions and thoughts."

"T" said it was only after he "took a break" from the church that his depression lifted. "It was the church's attitude towards my sexuality that was the issue," he recalled.

This should be enough to make people wonder if the Tory party actually have changed at all. At the beginning of last month we had Chris Grayling secretly taped suggesting that people who ran bed and breakfasts in their homes should "have the right" to turn away homosexual couples. And now we hear this.

David Cameron is very good at portraying the Tory party as some kind of new happy-clappy all inclusive party that has banished the kind of thinking that the Tories embraced when they passed Section 28. But, when one scratches beneath the surface, one finds that there are many examples which give a clear indication that their thinking hasn't actually changed at all and that they remain as bigoted and narrow minded as they always were.

Phillipa Stroud is merely the latest example in a long list of warnings .

Click here for full article.

Saturday, May 01, 2010

So Who Is For, "Drill Baby, Drill" Now?

Crooks and Liars have produced a video showing the Republican Party's obsession with "Drill baby, drill" during the last election, and their insistence that it was utterly safe.

Here's what Palin said in her debate with Joe Biden:

The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.

Barack Obama and Senator O'Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore -- as raping the outer continental shelf.

There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that.

They have gone awfully quiet recently. Bill Maher had the right idea about what they should now be doing.

I have spoken before about my puzzlement at Obama's decision to allow off shore drilling, although I note that even he is now backing away from that strategy.

But that reversal is not enough to stop Limbaugh calling this "Obama's Katrina".

I thought Haiti was Obama's Katrina according to Limbaugh? I guess if you wish for it hard enough you can see Obama's Katrina everywhere.

And Palin, the person who screamed "Drill baby, drill" during the last election campaign, has tweeted her compassion.

That should give great comfort to those facing environmental disaster.

UPDATE:

Media Matters have produced a video showing how hard Fox News pushed for "drill baby, drill".

UPDATE II:

Some people are changing their tunes rather quickly. Hannity used to argue, "We don't need to explore, we need to drill, baby, drill." That's not the argument he is making here. Far from it. Now it's the environmentalists fault for opposing nuclear and other forms of energy.

John McCain swings right in desperate bid for political survival.

There is simply no end to the myriad of ways in which John McCain can reinvent himself.

In 2007, McCain proposed a joint immigration bill with Ted Kennedy that would have opened the path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the US. Other Republicans branded it an amnesty and killed it off.

This time, McCain has taken a hard line. He has described the new Arizona legislation, which requires police to stop all people they suspect of being illegal immigrants, as a necessary tool. The border has to be secured first, before immigration reform is tackled, he says; he proposes a six-point plan which includes sending 3,000 National Guard members to the border, a move not so different from the Arizona Cattlemen's Association's 10-point plan.

On the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News this week, contrary to his previous habit of not demonising illegal immigrants, McCain claimed that "the drivers of cars with illegals in it … are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway".

His U-turn prompted a New York Times editorial, entitled Come Back, John McCain, that argued that no election was worth winning "if you have to abandon what you believe". Columnist Michelle Malkin made much the same point in the National Review, saying: "I need a Dramamine to cover Senator John McCain's re-election bid. With his desperate lurch to the right he's inducing more motion sickness than a Disneyland teacup."

McCain likes being a Senator. That title is clearly very important to his sense of self esteem. But what's disturbing is that he will now, apparently, abandon everything he has previously believed in order to keep it.

And the thing that is pushing McCain ever further to the right is the Tea Party movement.

McCain's main opponent for the Republican nomination is JD Hayworth, a radio host and former Congressman who has so far raised $1m. Even though Hayworth is a far from formidable candidate – he recently said expansion of same-sex marriage would allow people to marry their horses – and had a poor Congress record, a Rasmussen poll shows McCain on only 47% to Hayworth's 42%, a significant narrowing over the last few months.

The influential conservative website Red State is referring to McCain as Good and Bad. "Maybe Bad John has given way to Good John in the wake of a strong primary challenge from JD Hayworth? Amazing what a little competition will do."

Hayworth's strength is that he is backed by the Tea Party, the conservative grassroots movement. The Tea Party is steadily shifting the Republican party to the right by supporting candidates of a similar persuasion.

The Republican Party could only have gone one of two ways after their recent presidential defeat. They could have moved towards the centre or towards the far right. They have chosen the worst possible route.

The journey which John McCain has embarked on, where he now sells out everything that he once believed in - in the hope of pleasing these lunatics - is an indication of just how far to the right the Tea Party movement are dragging the Republicans.

Nothing good will come from this madness.

They are now seeking to please the most radical in their midst.

It's insanity.

Click here for full article.

Nick Clegg: we have taken Labour's place in UK politics.

I really like Nick Clegg and I think he has had a far more successful election campaign than even he himself would have predicted a few short weeks ago.

But, as election day approaches, I think he is stretching reality slightly too far.

In a Guardian interview, Clegg accuses David Cameron of having no agenda for progressive reform of the country, and says the Lib Dems and Labour come from the same historical tradition.

Indeed they do, which is why I have previously wondered why he was talking about a coalition with the Tories rather than with Labour.

He says he is rejecting all talk of tactical voting and is instead "going for broke" to maximise his party's share of the vote.

Clegg insists that the tectonic plates of politics are shifting, and the choice has distilled down to a vote for his party or a Conservative party that will "cast the country adrift".

I think what he is saying there is true; the Tories will, indeed, "cast the country adrift". But that only makes me question why he has been flirting with the Tories all this time rather than seeking to make a genuine progressive alliance with Labour; the only party which shares the same mindset as the Liberal Democrats.

Obviously, it is his job as Liberal leader to claim that his party now replaces Labour as the progressive choice in this country, and I fully understand why he would wish to do that.

But, in reality, Clegg is not going to be our next Prime Minister, although it is very likely that he will enjoy the role of king-maker.

What side will he choose?

Will he seriously form an alliance with the party that he now says will "cast the country adrift?"

"What is striking is despite all the blather from Cameron over the past few weeks, he has made up his mind strategically to set his face against any profound reform of the political system. I think this will prove to be the biggest strategic error he has ever made, because one thing you cannot do is set your face against change when the demand for that change is so powerful that it is coming from millions of people.

"In terms of its DNA, the Conservative party is now the party of entrenched vested interests of politics."

That sounds to me like a threat to Cameron to reconsider his position on proportional representation.

And, should Cameron come out with the right answer, Clegg - despite all that he is saying here - will side with him.

And that's despite him saying this:

"I think if you look at the debate last night, there is just a gulf between what David Cameron stands for and what I stand for – in terms of values, in terms of internationalism, in terms of fairness, in terms of progressive tax reform, in terms of political reform, in terms of simply living in denial, as does Labour, about a major problem of their creation in the immigration system."

Asked if the same gulf existed with Labour, he says: "I have always accepted the first part of Roy Jenkins's analysis which says that historically Labour and Liberal Democrats are two wings of a progressive tradition in British politics." But Clegg maintains his party cannot be an annexe of Labour, and there is a fundamental difference between the two parties over the individual and the state.

I have no idea any more which direction Clegg is going to move in once this election is over, which is perhaps an indication of how well this poker player is dealing with his hand.

But it does sound to me as if Clegg is now going hell for leather for proportional representation and that he will side with whichever party agrees to give it to him. And Cameron is so desperate for power that my money is still on him as the person most likely to agree to whatever Clegg demands.

Click here for full article.